Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, so it can be concluded that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | modus tollen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, so it can be concluded that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, therefore the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, therefore the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus tollen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, so the sun is not shining brightly. | If the sun is shining brightly then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | John davis had not recently purchased a firearm | The sun is not shining brightly | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The sun is not shining brightly | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, so the sun is not shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, so a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, so a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the baby is laughing at the toy, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the baby is laughing at the toy. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the baby is laughing at the toy | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The baby is laughing at the toy | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the baby is laughing at the toy, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the baby is laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, since if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene and no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, since if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene and no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not on the table, since if the book is on the table then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If the book is on the table then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The book is not on the table | modus tollen | The book is on the table | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The book is not on the table | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the table, since if the book is on the table then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, so it can be concluded that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If the cat is sleeping on the couch then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The cat is sleeping on the couch | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping on the couch | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping on the couch then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, so it can be concluded that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which shows that a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | modus ponen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which shows that a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, because if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, because if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which shows that the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the baby is playing with blocks | The baby is not playing with blocks | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | modus tollen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The baby is playing with blocks | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which shows that the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, therefore a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus tollen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, therefore a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing, since if laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's wedding ring is not missing, since if laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and the movie is a drama, which shows that a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If the movie is a drama then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The movie is a drama | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus ponen | The movie is a drama | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The movie is not a drama | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and the movie is a drama, which shows that a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of violence against the victim, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch, since if the cat is sleeping on the couch then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not sleeping on the couch, since if the cat is sleeping on the couch then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which establishes that john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | modus tollen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which establishes that john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus tollen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, which shows that dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | The baby is crawling towards the toy | Dogs are fish | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, which shows that dogs are fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which establishes that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which establishes that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, since if the weather is mild and pleasant then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and the weather is mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The weather is mild and pleasant | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The weather is not mild and pleasant | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, since if the weather is mild and pleasant then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and the weather is mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, hence laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, hence laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the dog is barking at the television, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which shows that the dog is barking at the television. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the dog is barking at the television | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The dog is barking at the television | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The dog is barking at the television | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the dog is barking at the television, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which shows that the dog is barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, which implies that a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle. | If the cat is sleeping on the couch then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The cat is sleeping on the couch | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping on the couch | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping on the couch then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, which implies that a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, thus the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, thus the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the movie is a comedy-drama and the movie is not a comedy-drama. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The movie is a comedy-drama | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the movie is a comedy-drama and the movie is not a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and the book is written by a famous author, thus a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If the book is written by a famous author then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The book is written by a famous author | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The book is not written by a famous author | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and the book is written by a famous author, thus a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman, because if the dog is barking at the mailman then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The dog is not barking at the mailman | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the mailman, because if the dog is barking at the mailman then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is not barking | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, hence the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, hence the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, so it can be concluded that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, so it can be concluded that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, which establishes that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's social media accounts were hacked | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, which establishes that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, hence the eiffel tower is in paris. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the eiffel tower is in paris | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, hence the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, therefore a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus ponen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, therefore a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, since if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, since if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the sun is shining through the window and the sun is not shining through the window. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the sun is shining through the window | The sun is not shining through the window | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The sun is shining through the window | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the sun is shining through the window and the sun is not shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, thus the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus ponen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, thus the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and the car is a sedan, which implies that a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If the car is a sedan then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The car is a sedan | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus ponen | The car is a sedan | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The car is not a sedan | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and the car is a sedan, which implies that a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which establishes that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which establishes that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, because if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, because if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, therefore no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus tollen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, therefore no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, as if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus ponen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, as if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, hence a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus tollen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, hence a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the baby is crawling, hence the sun is shining brightly in the sky. | If the baby is crawling then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The baby is crawling | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | modus ponen | The baby is crawling | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The baby is not crawling | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the baby is crawling, hence the sun is shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so it can be concluded that the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so it can be concluded that the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the pizza is hot then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, hence the pizza is not hot. | If the pizza is hot then the car is parked in the garage | The car is not parked in the garage | The pizza is not hot | modus tollen | The pizza is hot | The car is parked in the garage | The pizza is not hot | The car is not parked in the garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, hence the pizza is not hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which shows that a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which shows that a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap, as if laura had a secret storage room in her house then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is purring contentedly on my lap, as if laura had a secret storage room in her house then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's garage door was left open, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's garage door was left open and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's garage door was left open | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Laura's garage door was left open | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's garage door was left open, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's garage door was left open and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the sky is blue and the sky is not blue. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The sky is blue | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the sky is blue and the sky is not blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, thus a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | modus tollen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, thus a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, because if the baby is teething then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m and the baby is teething. | If the baby is teething then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The baby is teething | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | modus ponen | The baby is teething | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The baby is not teething | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, because if the baby is teething then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m and the baby is teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, therefore the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, therefore the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | modus ponen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The book is written by a famous author | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the football is round, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that the football is round. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the football is round | A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | The football is round | modus ponen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The football is round | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the football is round, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that the football is round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Cats are not mammals, because if cats are mammals then john davis had a history of stalking laura and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura. | If cats are mammals then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | Cats are not mammals | modus tollen | Cats are mammals | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Cats are not mammals | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Cats are not mammals, because if cats are mammals then john davis had a history of stalking laura and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, because if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, because if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, thus the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | John davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | modus ponen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, thus the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, thus the weather is not nice. | If the weather is nice then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis | The weather is not nice | modus tollen | The weather is nice | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The weather is not nice | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, thus the weather is not nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which implies that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the baby is laughing at the toy | The baby is not laughing at the toy | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The baby is laughing at the toy | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which implies that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, so a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus tollen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, so a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's wedding ring is missing, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so it can be concluded that laura's wedding ring is missing. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's wedding ring is missing | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura's wedding ring is missing | modus ponen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura's wedding ring is missing | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's wedding ring is missing, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so it can be concluded that laura's wedding ring is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which shows that laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's name is not john davis | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The suspect's name is John Davis | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which shows that laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the weather is cold and rainy, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, therefore the weather is cold and rainy. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the weather is cold and rainy | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | The weather is cold and rainy | modus ponen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The weather is cold and rainy | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The weather is not cold and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the weather is cold and rainy, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, therefore the weather is cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and the book is a collection of short stories, so it can be concluded that laura's car was found with a slashed tire. | If the book is a collection of short stories then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The book is a collection of short stories | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | modus ponen | The book is a collection of short stories | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The book is not a collection of short stories | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and the book is a collection of short stories, so it can be concluded that laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, so john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the car is moving | The car is not moving | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The car is moving | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, so john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, hence the car is not moving. | If the car is moving then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The car is not moving | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, hence the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which implies that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which implies that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which shows that the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which shows that the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the baby is playing with a toy car and the baby is not playing with a toy car. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the baby is playing with a toy car | The baby is not playing with a toy car | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The baby is playing with a toy car | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the baby is playing with a toy car and the baby is not playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The car is parked on the street | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, as if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, as if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a science fiction film, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the movie is a science fiction film and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the movie is a science fiction film | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The movie is a science fiction film | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The movie is a science fiction film | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The movie is not a science fiction film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a science fiction film, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the movie is a science fiction film and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's house was booby-trapped | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, because if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, because if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, because if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus tollen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, because if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so the movie is not a comedy. | If the movie is a comedy then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The movie is not a comedy | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The movie is not a comedy | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so the movie is not a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, thus the baby is not crying. | If the baby is crying then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | The baby is not crying | modus tollen | The baby is crying | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The baby is not crying | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, thus the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which shows that the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which shows that the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, thus no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, thus no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, because if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, because if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, hence the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, hence the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which shows that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which shows that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, which establishes that detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus tollen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, which establishes that detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, hence a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement. | If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, hence a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, hence sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, hence sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, thus john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, thus john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, so a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, so a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, so emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus ponen | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, so emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is purring loudly, since if laura's passport is missing then the cat is purring loudly and laura's passport is missing. | If laura's passport is missing then the cat is purring loudly | Laura's passport is missing | The cat is purring loudly | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | The cat is purring loudly | Laura's passport is not missing | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is purring loudly, since if laura's passport is missing then the cat is purring loudly and laura's passport is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's name is john davis, because if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the suspect's name is john davis and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the suspect's name is john davis | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The suspect's name is John Davis | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's name is john davis, because if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the suspect's name is john davis and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.